"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message
...
|
| But such arguments about safety aside, such energy would not
| be free. Why do you think that it would be?

Because when "*" reads that hydrogen peroxide can potentially be made from
water, he believes the transition from H2O to H2O2 is then somehow a trivial
process. Since H2O2 is shown to liberate great quantities of energy when it
decomposes back into oxygen and water, he believes it constitutes a
suppressed form of free energy. Of course whether the energy is free or not
depends on how much energy is required to create the hydrogen peroxide in
the first place.

| H2O2 cannot be manufactured and handled without some cost and
| hazard involved.

Considerable cost. The cheapest method of creating hydrogen peroxide in
large quantities requires costly reactants. To keep the reaction productive
requires expensive chemical production plants. You can't simply put water
and oxygen in the same jar and shake it. In fact, the common process uses
water only as a mixing agent to separate the H2O2 from the solvents involved
in one of the steps. You then have to distill out the H2O2.

Hydrogen peroxide, in the concentrations used in the applications "*" cites,
is a powerful oxidizing agent. That's extremely hazardous. You wouldn't be
allowed to have it in your home in concentrations greater than 8%. We want
to use it for rocket fuel because, hazardous as it is, it's still less
hazardous than the truly vile things we have to use now.

| After all, if it were cheaper and safer to make our own electricity
| with home generators, we would all be doing it.

But that's where the free-energy enthusiasts claim that the large energy
companies are in cahoots with the world governments to suppress all this
"cheap" and "safe" energy in order to protect their profits. But you knew
all along there was some anti-Gubmint conspiracy theory buried down there
somewhere.

You can usually find that free-energists lack even basic scientific
understanding. This helps along their delusions quite nicely. And they
usually can't understand the difference between efficiency and
cost-effectiveness. Nuclear energy, for example, is tremendously efficient.
But the cost of operating it safely erodes the benefit.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org